As you read this, my brand new dual-E5620 and its eight cores of terrifying web-serving might are idly twiddling their thumbs.  The gigabit Ethernet port, with its dozen-or-so 10-gigabit pipes to the outside world, flickers occasionally out of sheer boredom.  The SAS RAID-10 setup  is mildly amused, but you would be too if you were spinning around at 15,000 RPM.

Cool things are happening.  Details soon.

Someone forgot to tell the city that we’re teetering on the verge of financial disaster.

See this? We can do better.

An article in PennLive yesterday described the project in detail.  Put simply, it calls for the complete reconstruction of the area from Seventh & Reily to Cameron & Maclay, by way of Seventh St.  Seventh will be widened from two to four lanes, new streetlamps will be installed, new sidewalks will be poured, and a lot of behind-the-scenes infrastructure improvement will take place.

All of which will create a major city artery that empties out onto Reily Street — the gateway to HACC and midtown.  It’s likely that this will also drive up land value within the corridor, which will in turn spark development and reinvestment.

Take that gas station on the corner of Seventh & Maclay.  The corridor improvements could cause that land value to skyrocket, allowing the owner to take out a loan to finance construction of a better convenience store … or even a deli.

Take the vacant lots between Sixth & Seventh in the corridor.  Those owned by the city can be doled out for high-density development, and those owned by individuals will likely jump up substantially in value.

What if that entire neighborhood became a vibrant, desirable place to live?  Before you laugh, recall that just over a decade ago nobody considered downtown or midtown to be prime parts of the city.

The benefits of the project are simply too great to list.  And it’s likely that within a few years — especially with Vartan’s three developments along neighboring Sixth Street, to say nothing of the new federal courthouse — the improvements will spread to the surrounding neighborhoods.

The Northern Gateway will help anchor a consistent, modern redevelopment initiative across the entire length of the city.  And once the project is completed, it will very likely improve conditions on Sixth over the same stretch.

Since most of the affected area is currently populated by vacant lots, it’s hard to envision a scenario where this doesn’t have a positive impact on the city.

Coupled with ongoing midtown redevelopment and downtown’s still-strong entertainment district, I can’t help but wonder:  Could this help reverse Harrisburg’s decades-old population decline?

To put that another way, are we witnessing the beginnings of the rebirth of our city?

The Furlow was designed in 1908 by Charles Howard Lloyd, a renowned Harrisburg architect.  It was originally home to Commercial Bank, and later became the site of the first Pennsylvania-owned liquor store.  Details on subsequent uses vary, but the building shuttered for good in the early 1980s.  Its final purpose was as a luxury apartment building.

Details are a little hard to pin down, but it appears that plans for the building call for ground-level boutique retail with about two dozen one-bedroom apartments above.  This is where details become sketchy.  Some sources seem to suggest that the building will cater to low-income residents, while others seem to suggest that the building will cater to young professionals.  The latter obviously makes more sense for midtown.  If you provide young professionals with an attractive place to live in what has become THE place to live in the city, they’ll move in and bring their disposable income with them.  That’s great news for the merchants and investors who have been holding out along Third St these last few years.  The small surge of residents that this building intends to draw could be the catalyst that helps neighboring businesses evolve from “sustainable” to “profitable”.

To put that another way, recall that ten years ago, many people still considered midtown to be a blighted part of the city.  Today, thanks to heroic efforts among the locals, midtown has emerged as the arts & culture district of Harrisburg.  The place where all the cool kids want to live.  And while there are plenty of townhomes and lowrise rentals to be had, some of us just prefer high-density living.  At this moment, that’s simply not available in midtown at any price.

The building’s redevelopment is being handled by Greenworks.  I’ve found that exactly half of the city loathes Greenworks, while the other half supports them fanatically.  I know nothing about the company or its goings-on, so feel free to school me in the comments below.

As part of the renovations, Greenworks will be demolishing the single-story structure in the rear of the building.  This was clearly not part of the original building, and I’m happy to see this cinder-block monstrosity disappear.  In its place will be off-street parking and some sort of elevator / storage building.  Zoning hearings are coming up for this on September 7 and 12.  I will definitely be there.

If the Furlow building does indeed target young professionals, this will be a boon for midtown’s stability.  The 1500 Project is selling high-end condos just a few blocks east, and Lofts at 909 handle furnished rentals to the south.  Neither of these really fit the bill for those of us who, for a variety of good reasons, would rather rent long-term.  Given Harrisburg’s near-total lack of upmarket rentals, high-end apartments in the Furlow would see unprecedented demand.

Unless Executive House plans to go upmarket with their three new floors of one- and two-bedroom apartments, of course.  But that’s another posting.

You see, Nancy Eshelman — a long-time opinion writer at the Patriot News — published a story over the weekend complaining about downtown Harrisburg.  I’ve read and re-read her article several times, and I’ll be damned if I can figure out what, exactly, she is complaining about.  Read the article for yourself and if you can come up with anything, please let the rest of us know.  The only conclusions I’m able to reach from that particular article are:

• Nancy Eshelman eats dinner downtown at 2am (incidentally, where?)
• Nancy Eshelman is confused about the location of Beaver Stadium
• Loud noises

I think she might have attempted to bring up guns, too.

I get that she’s complaining about “downtown Harrisburg” and “people” and “music”.  That’s pretty clear.  And she’s extremely displeased with the way 20-somethings behave these days.  Twenty years ago (we’re talking 1991, in case you’re bad with math), 22-year-olds had checkbooks.  Today, they ruin downtown with their “loud music” (and I bet nobody ever pays their tab by check anymore).

Oh, and something about vomit.  And urine.  She definitely seems to think that downtown Harrisburg is a Lovecraftian nightmare of people enthusiastically vomiting and urinating all over everything in sight.

Nancy, this is what 20-somethings do (the going downtown to socialize part, not the vomiting and urinating part).  This is how they spend their weekends.  Not all of them, of course, but the ones within the scope of your article do.  It’s part of life.  Rest assured that most of the participants of the “downtown debauchery” (that’s a first) go home and have meaningful, productive jobs to attend to, which they do quite well.  Some of them even have children, tucked away with a babysitter.  Some will take cabs home.  Many more will ride with a designated driver.  A handful will even walk.

And then there are those who aren’t even 20-somethings.  Having spent a good chunk of my 20s working in a downtown nightclub, I can say with absolute authority that bad behavior knows no age limit.

Downtown can be a noisy place.  In case you missed the circa-2001 memo, downtown is the city’s entertainment district.  It is intended to be a place where people can go out, socialize, and generally enjoy themselves.  It is not meant to be a quiet getaway where 60-somethings can knit in peace.  That you would even presume this to be the case defies words.

While you may be pleased with yourself for being the nosy bluehair at the next table who shushes everybody, it’s worth pointing out that this makes you the nosy bluehair at the next table who shushes everybody.

Granted, the notion that this was a publicity stunt seems far more likely than the possibility that the city suddenly found some magical happy-time cure-all solution that they forgot existed and that staved off closing for now.

Because otherwise, they’d just be a bunch of obnoxious pricks.

DUE TO UNFORTUNATE FINANCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND OUR CONTROL, THE CITY OF HARRISBURG WILL BE CLOSING IMMEDIATELY.  ALL WILD WEST ARTIFACTS, PARKING GARAGES, AND INCINERATORS ARE ONLY $4 EACH.  THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE TO GET A SOUVENIR BEAVER FOR ONLY $9 OR A MIDTOWN SINKHOLE FOR $15.

My first thought was that this was nothing more than a poorly-executed promotional gimmick.  I mean, come on — who doesn’t know that their city is on the verge of shutdown at least several months in advance?  Mayor Thompson may be dense, but even she’s been acknowledging that the city is in poor financial shape since before her first day in office.

But the more I thought about it, I began to realize that absolutely nobody is this classless.  Nobody is this mean.  Nobody has so much disregard for their neighbors that they’d resort to such a deplorable tactic.  The thought of faking a “going out of business” notice just to drum up business for the city is just vile and would shred whatever reputation the city had left.

So it’s pretty obvious at this point that the city isn’t fooling around.  Clearly this is an honest case of the city making a good-faith, last-ditch effort to drum up some revenue in order to pay final bills.  There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that, and I’m certain they’ve done it with only the best intentions.  I implore my fellow Burgers to come out for one final Harrisburg Huzzah, as I am 100% confident that this is absolutely, positively, not a promotional stunt.

Unless they’re still open tomorrow, of course.

A woman was mugged in the River Street Garage (the one on Second; no idea why they chose to name it after the small alley that runs behind it rather than the major thoroughfare that runs in front of it, but I digress), a c-store clerk was robbed, a guy was mugged with a brick, a dude was assaulted in a park near Italian Lake, a teen’s laptop was stolen while he was using it, some dude kicked a woman in the face and stole her purse, and a guy was stabbed while walking around.  The “and a half” comes from a Harrisburg guy who was charged with breaking into an apartment in Carlisle.  And again, this was all reported in a 24-hour period.

Naturally, the PennLive West Shore Trolls did not hesitate to blame this on Linda Thompson / Barack Obama / the Democrats / the Liberals / “those people” / people who don’t listen to Glenn Beck.  But the real question remains unanswered — what just happened?

Was this a statistical fluke?  It’s possible, but unlikely.  True flukes don’t happen often, even with as broad a subject as “crime”.  And when they do, they’re often small blips on the radar.  More often than not, there exists an underlying foundation of causes (important distinction:  ”causes”, not “justifications”).  Each cause may only be small — an employer notifying its employees of layoffs, a local bank deciding it can no longer delay foreclosures, perfect weather, a speech, a song, and so on.  If you imagine a scale weighing people’s conscious, moral decision to behave well on the left, and all the factors contributing to bad behavior on the right, and the causes as weights of varying sizes, you can see how a combination of seemingly-unrelated occurrences can impact our daily lives.

Does this represent an editorial shift at the Patriot-News or PennLive?  There have been accusations in the past that the Patriot News and/or PennLive and/or the Mayor’s office fail to report on a lot of significant crimes in the city.  Without only hearsay and anecdotal evidence, I can’t speak to the veracity of those claims.  But if they were true, it certainly wouldn’t be the first time a media outlet or political figure has been ensnared in a egregious conflict of interest.  In the old days of print media, there used to be a reasonable explanation for limited crime reporting:  the amount of space on the paper.  Today, you can look at the Harrisburg Police Department’s preliminary reports and see for yourself.

Is regional crime really accelerating this quickly?  Or, more importantly, is Harrisburg accelerating any faster than the surrounding municipalities?  Probably.  It’s a city; comparing it to Camp Hill or Wormleysburg or Linglestown is laughable at best.  Looking at the big picture, violent crime dipped about 5.5% nationwide in 2009, though it’s still a little to early to get a clear picture.  Statistics being what they are, however, we’re still left without any real insight into what — if anything — is happening.

The actual answer lies somewhere in a combination of the above.  Economic and social factors play significant roles in molding the crime rate, while the reporting policies of our media outlets and elected officials deeply affect how much we’re made aware of.  All of this, of course, is a fancy way of saying “I don’t get paid enough to figure this out.”  The only definitive statement I can make is that this is why I went back to renting, rather than purchasing another home in midtown.  The city’s finances — those economic reasons we were just talking about — are going to play a massive role in how the coming years play out.  And until we get those in order, there is absolutely no way I am going to stake a mortgage to any municipality in Dauphin County.

Is Harrisburg a bad place to live?  Not at all.  We have a collection of vibrant neighborhoods in midtown, decent employment opportunities, a location central to larger metropolitan areas AND rural countryside, and enough infrastructure to weather any storm that comes our way.  I will continue to rent in the city until the bullets start flying through my balcony door.  The one true question, then, is as follows:

Is Harrisburg entering the 1970s again?

It definitely wasn’t hacked.

NOTE:  I am not a lawyer.  Nothing in this post constitutes legal advice.  Assume that everything you read in here is wrong.  Consult a legal professional if you have any questions.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is an incredibly powerful tool with far-reaching consequences.  We hear the phrase “First Amendment rights” thrown around a lot, and it’s easy to take it for granted.  Thanks to the Internet, we’re in a sort of micro-renaissance for the First Amendment, with its guaranteed rights being tested in ways never before seen.  Our founding fathers never fathomed inventions like WordPress or Twitter, but they knew that the unhindered expression of ideas, beliefs, and news was critical to the success of our nation.  And it’s a philosophy that, despite what you see in the news, is still fiercely upheld by our modern courts.

“Against the backdrop of First Amendment protection for anonymous speech, courts have held that civil subpoenas seeking information regarding anonymous individuals raise First Amendment concerns.” Sony Music Entertainment v. Does, 326 F.Supp.2d 556, 565 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)

“…[T]he constitutional rights of Internet users, including the First Amendment right to speak anonymously, must be carefully safeguarded.” Doe v. 2themart.com Inc., 140 F. Supp. 2d 1088, 1097 (W.D. Wash. 2001)

Challenges to our First Amendment rights have grown in recent years, but advocacy groups and courts alike have been constantly waging huge battles to ensure that our rights remain not only in-tact, but are able to be fully asserted in the face of legal challenges.  This is good, because hardly a day goes by where the offended are unable to find new, innovative ways to attack our right to self-expression.

The most relevant challenge in this context is that of defamation.  Defamation is a constantly-evolving concept that requires a great deal of scrutiny and research to bring forth. EFF has a very good, concise explanation of defamation on their website, and Wikipedia’s entry ain’t bad either.  I’m not going to define the concept here because doing so would require more time and space than I have at my disposal.

But at the end of the day, the First Amendment does not protect against defamation.

And yet, the list of exemptions to and defenses against defamation is nearly as long and as complicated as the case law definition of the tort itself.

For example, truth is almost always an affirmative defense against defamation.  You can’t sue someone for publishing a fact about you, no matter how embarrassing or offensive it might be (well, you can; anyone can sue anyone at any time for any reason, but that’s getting beyond the scope of my blog).  And yet, even this exception has exceptions.  You can not, for example, publish medically-sensitive information about another person without that person’s knowledge and consent.  Doing so wouldn’t necessarily be defamation, but it also wouldn’t be protected speech.

See how quickly this can spiral out of control?

I’ve been threatened with a few defamation lawsuits over the years, but somehow none have ever made it to the county clerk’s office.  Threatening a lawsuit is one cheap and sadly-effective way of oppressing free speech.  As a result of those threats, however, I casually follow case law on defamation, and I know how to choose my words carefully.  And I also keep a savings account stashed away in case I ever have to go defend myself in court (note to would-be litigants:  you will lose, and you will reimburse me for my legal fees and lost time.  Just sayin’).

So anyway, back to Fake Mayor Linda Thompson.  (note to self:  Back to Fake Mayor Linda would be a great name for an indie band)

Politicians have an extremely difficult time bringing forth successful defamation claims.  By the very nature of their career choice, they have voluntarily subjected themselves to the public spotlight.  And in the eyes of the courts, they have chosen to become the very subjects against whom the overwhelming majority of First-Amendment-protected speech is directed.  It’s not that they can’t bring a defamation claim, it’s just that, with limited exception, the courts more or less shrug and say “so?”.

For example, I can easily say that I don’t like Mayor Linda Thompson.  I can publish my opinion that her confrontational style has alienated her from the city and has brought additional struggles to what is already a dark period in Harrisburg’s history.  The First Amendment goes so far as to even guarantee that satire and parody, absent any valid claim of defamation or any similar tort, are protected under the First Amendment (without this, we’d have no The Daily Show).

So if I wanted to, say, create an account parodying Linda Thompson, doing so would be an act protected by the United States Constitution.

At this week’s Harrisburg Tweetup (third Wednesday of every month, 7pm at Abbey Bar), lots of fingers were pointing (all in good fun) about who was responsible for the @MayorLThompson account.  Between the good-natured finger-pointing and comments on Twitter, I am apparently one of the top contenders for being the culprit.  So I wanted to put this post together to make everything absolutely clear.

The following quote seems particularly relevant within the context of an anonymous Twitterer using social media to express political criticism.  Although I am admittedly taking it slightly out of context, the spirit of the quote rings louder now than ever before:

“[T]he First Amendment . . . presupposes that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues, than through any kind of authoritative selection. To many this is, and always will be, folly; but we have staked upon it our all.” United States v. Associated Press, 52 F. Supp. 362, 372 (S.D.N.Y. 1943) (opinion of the court by Judge Learned Hand), aff’d, 326 U.S. 1 (1945)

Weighed against the backdrop of massive case law asserting First Amendment protection to anonymous criticism of political entities, I am only able to point out that I, like you and everyone else in this nation who has ever held an opinion, am Spartacus.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8h_v_our_Q]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

First, being the IT Professional ™ that I am, I’m going to offer the city some complimentary advice on securing their website:

• Stop using “lindasucksLOL” as your root password.  It’s really not that secure, though kudos for use on the mixed capitalization.  (IMPORTANT NOTICE FOR THE SARCASM-IMPAIRED AND/OR HARRISBURG MAYOR LINDA THOMPSON (MAYOR, HARRISBURG (MAYOR)):  I don’t really know the root password)
• No matter how much she cries, no matter how much she begs — never, never give Mayor Thompson (Mayor (Harrisburg (Mayor))) the password after midnight.
• For Christ’s sake stop replying to those emails from “legal@yourwebmaster dot com.ru”.  They aren’t really from your webmaster and you don’t really need to send him your password “or face account deleshon (sic)”!

In all seriousness, however, there is one option the city should consider.  And it would only cost taxpayers about three cents a day.

According to PennLive’s article, the webmaster does his work on a volunteer basis.  I’m curious to see what the council pays for hosting and domain registration fees.  Unless the server and bandwidth are donated to the city, we’re paying too much.

There’s no reason the city council couldn’t host its site on WordPress.com.  It would cost $10 per year (and even this is optional), be fully managed 24×7, and could be updated by anyone capable of writing a letter using Microsoft Word.  Updates and backups would be completely automatic and behind-the-scenes, meaning absolutely zero technical knowledge would be required to run the site.  And in the event of a “hack”, odds are outstanding that a backup would be automatically restored before anyone even noticed.

Unless of course you keep using “lindaLOL” as your password.  Then I can’t help you.

The building will occupy the entire block from 6th & Reily to 5th & Boyd.  Presently, this lot is vacant aside from a solitary duplex. It’s easily within walking distance of everything midtown has to offer, and its proximity to the forthcoming courthouse helps cement thoughts of further redevelopment in the area.  Underground parking will be available for residents.  It looks like the parking / storage area will empty onto Fifth Street (hooray!), which will help shunt some of the residents towards midtown.

No ETA on opening and absolutely no pricing information, but you can see the floorplans on their Facebook page.

The construction of dense residential development near midtown has been a long time coming.  Midtown’s redevelopment has really picked up steam in the last few years, and this will help draw a professional, single crowd to the area in ways the existing low-rise blocks can not.  The Lofts at 909 does a good job drawing a professional crowd, but it’s not well suited for those of us with furniture and/or who aren’t looking to put down that kind of monthly payment without building equity.  1500 especially appeals to me because it combines the proximity to midtown with the community of mid- / hi-rise living.

The question is, will it work?  In 20 years, what will the rest of the northward community be like?  Will it still be boarded-up hotels and condemned townhomes?  Or will we see further development, more shops, and beautification without gentrification?